Michael Moore Flummoxed by Link Between More Guns, Less Crime
From the files of clippings I've saved over the years, one of my favorite headlines -- "Prison populations, costs climbing: $40b a year spent on inmates despite falling crime rate," as published in The Boston Globe on July 28, 2003.
Yes -- "despite".
Not the only time I've seen a headline along these lines, though less often nowadays, its idiocy becoming too obvious to ignore.
As if to fill the void, a variation on the theme has appeared, especially in the wake of the Tucson shooting. It goes like this -- gun ownership rates climb despite falling crime rates. With any luck, this too will be consigned to the dustbin, but don't hold your breath.
Best recent example -- agitprop filmmaker Michael Moore appearing on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show Monday and saying this --
[Video clip after page break]
MOORE: Why do we, more than any other country, do this? I think it's more than just the laws. There's a reason why we want to own these guns. You pointed out last week that we're number one in gun ownership and then, Yemen ... (laughs)
MADDOW: ... Is a distant number two. Yes, that's right.
MOORE: ... a distant number two! So why us, why do we have this? And the majority of these guns, I mean, the vast majority of these guns are owned by people who live in safe parts of town or mostly in suburbs and rural areas, places where there are very few murders. And your sane producer was saying to me backstage here that he was talking to people there (in Tucson), they said everybody's packing there, I mean, the surgeons there at the hospital, they said they have guns, everybody has a gun, yet they all said we have a very low gun murder rate here in Tucson. So why do you have a gun then? Why do you have a gun? What are you afraid of? What is that thing that we're afraid of that we want to have a gun in the house?
"Yet" taking the place of "despite" -- "everybody has a gun, yet they all said we have a very low gun murder rate here in Tucson." But how can that be, liberals insistently point out?
Here's how, as described in a National Rifle Association fact sheet from last September titled "Gun Ownership Rises to All-Time High, Violent Crime Falls to 35-Year Low" and abundantly footnoted --
Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases that began shortly after the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, including an 8 percent decrease in murder and a nine percent decrease in robbery. Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43 percent to a 35-year low. Murder has fallen 49 percent to a 45-year low. At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million. Predictions by gun control supporters, that increasing the number of guns, particularly handguns and so-called "assault weapons," would cause crime to increase, have been profoundly lacking in clairvoyance.
As to be expected from Moore, he couldn't let the discourse pass without playing the race card --
I am loathe to bring up what is in our head because we don't like to talk about it so much. But on this particular day, on Martin Luther King Day, I think this needs to be said. That imaginary person that's going to break into your home and kill you, who does that person look like? You know, it's not freckle-faced Jimmy down the street, is it really? I mean, that's not what really, that's not what really people, we never really want to talk about the racial or the class part of this, in terms of how it's the poor or it's people of color that we imagine that we're afraid of. Why are we afraid? What is that, and it's been a fear that has existed for a very, very long time.
Who is Moore kidding? "We don't like to talk about it so much ... we never really want to talk about the racial and class part of this ..." There is nothing liberals want more than to talk about "this," preferably as soon as their feet hit the floor in the morning. Given the chance, they'll weave it into chit-chat about the weather, such as when dark clouds form on the horizon ... clearly the tea partiers' fault for the forecast, dontcha see?
Just out of curiosity, does Moore include Second Amendment advocate Gabrielle Giffords among those trigger-happy racists eager to execute impoverished people of color?
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Moore is afraid of the Bogey Man
Submitted by richb313 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:19pm.
Why is it when facts seem to disagree with whatever Mr. Moore is talking about he always resorts to calling Americans racists despite the fact that these very same Americans elected Pres. Obama? The only racist I can see is those like Mr. Moore who ALWAYS interjects race in every discussion.
No...
Submitted by kmcar67 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 3:38pm.
no he is not. He ate him.
You can lead a moron to water
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:20pm.
but you can't make him drink. I'm glad I had my lunch before MOORON'S picture appeared here at NB.
Especially when the moron
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 3:05pm.
Especially when the moron prefers koolaidAw, Mike, a suit, a sports jacket, something
Submitted by StarAZ on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:28pm.
Apart from his agenda, and his logical fallacies--this guy is not the "beard" type. Yick.
You can lead a Mooron to
Submitted by phryingphish on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:29pm.
You can lead a Mooron to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
There, fixed it.
Moore is flummoxed because he lacks the linear logic...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:32pm.
...to cross a street to get out of the rain.
And the racism charge at the end is a given, as that is the only argument he can come up with, which like all of the left's arguments when it comes to gun control, is bogus on it's face.
BTW: I heard Boortz talking about Michael Moore's appearance on this show this morning, and he suggested Moore sit down and watch some of those TV commercials put out by home security companies.
LOL - Ever notice that none of the intruders depicted in those commercials has even so much as a tan? I mean, they are all lily white - every last one of them.
And God help the company that ever airs a commercial with an intruder three or more shades darker than me, because we all know what would happen next.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Apparantly the only things
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:35pm.
Apparantly the only things that Moore isn't 'flummoxed' by are food, and his penchant for wearing stupid looking hats.................OK, maybe it's not the hats that are stupid looking.
The hats are there to hide
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 3:23pm.
The hats are there to hide the hole in his head. What is left after a lobotomy is not pleasant to look at.
Without realizing it, Moore
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:53pm.
Without realizing it, Moore is saying that black people and brown people are the criminals.
Nothing "outs" a racist as a racist better than their own playing of the race card.
Moore also misses the fact that exercise of rights doesn't hinge upon race or class. Of course, he thinks doing things hinges upon government permission and that government should deny this particular one.
Moore could not have less truth in his words if he tried.
Here is where to challenge him.
Sir, the "interest balancing approach" you attempt to present as backward is actually irellevant in and of itself. It has been dispensed with just as much as the "tied to militia service" argument has been. Neither have any bearing upon whether the tenets of Second Amendment exists, and neither does the Constitution itself for that matter, and what you display by trying to base your argument here is that either you are illinformed about the rights recognized within the Second Amendment our you are an outright liar about the subject.
Whichever way it comes out - you doom yourself to being wrong and you make a fool of yourself continuing on this failed path. Tht you try to place the race card too just goes to show the lack of merit in that avenue as well.
Mr. Moore, I would be happy to teach you about that which you are so mistaken, that is, if you care to actually learn. Let's discuss 'privileges or immunities' and the substance of the 14th Amendment which contains those precious words - most especially as they pertain to the Second and all other inalienable rights. You want to talk race and guns? By all means, let's do so, chump.
Not Michaels fault*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:59pm.
Maddow had her orders for taling points and Moore just got caught up in the sweep. Wonder what else Maddow talked about with THE ONE? And why wasn't Noel Sheppard invited?
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/cindy_adams/summons_journos_T9vxUrkMRevi0uxjHEtPvN#ixzz1BJGrjlVz
You know, the Moore-on may be right...
Submitted by bbboss on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 3:20pm.
The Moore-on (apologies to morons everywhere) may be correct....every time I see a photo of this slug...I get this bigoted feeling of hate for fat, stupid white guys who make fake documentries.
I know it is silly to ask that the Moore-on think on this fact; a black woman from the South as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter....but for a few (very, very few) lefties, this may be an eye opener.....
Condi Rice....
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, recalling how her father took up arms to defend fellow blacks from racist whites in the segregated South, said Wednesday the constitutional right of Americans to own guns is as important as their rights to free speech and religion.
Moore's right about freckle-faced Jimmy . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 3:35pm.
. . . He's not the one to worry about.
It's shaved-head Jared.
God made men (and
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 3:47pm.
God made men (and women)...Colonel Colt made them equal.
Moore has blood on his hands...
Submitted by jimbo297 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 3:55pm.
...since his "documentary" Farenheit 911 was likely on Loughner's must-see list, as it is for any truther out there. It's a heluva lot more likely that his liberal vitriol is responsible for inciting hatred and violence in that kid's warped mind than the possibility of one page on Palin's website setting him off.
If, as Larry O'Donnell says, cops are always missing their targets, then it sounds perfectly reasonable for everyone to take their personal safety into their own hands.
Debate gun control all you want, but one fact remains: guns are not going anywhere. Are they going to have National Turn In Your Firearm Day? Turn In Your Neighbor's Firearm Day? And these libs think that the country got all wee-weed up over death panels...
MOORE JUST PROVED OUR POINT
Submitted by JDL on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 4:14pm.
Moore is so stuck on being an elitist and thinking he knows what is better for everyone, that he does not know he answered his own question all by himself.
John R Lott jr. has a few books on this very subject. John R Lott jr has some very interesting points about how economics is a driving force in almost everything we do or are influenced by.
More Guns, Less Crime
Ths Bias Against Guns
Straight Shooting
Freedomnomics
What I would expect
Submitted by blablablather on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 4:30pm.
from the NRA. Direct line - increased gun sales - less violent crime. Eat it up boys. I call it dumb logic. Forget that in absolute terms firearm death to children under 15 is way beyond any other country in the world. But that comes from the liberal-agenda Center for Disease Control.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
What's the NRA got to say about that? As long as there is a decrease in violent crime by 4 year olds, then I guess more guns is good.
A question for you there
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 4:41pm.
A question for you there blabla,
Where is the USA on the list of countries with the most crimes stopped cold as the result of a firearm?
I did my homework already
Submitted by blablablather on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 4:57pm.
Your turn. And good luck with it. You've been watching to much TV.
Blah, not to be a racist, but
Submitted by Hunter12 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 6:14pm.
Blah, not to be a racist, but your statistic is black-on-black crimes relating to gangs and/or drugs and 99.99% of them are committed with illegal guns. How is regulating legally purchased guns going to effect that?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
blahbla
Submitted by ant on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 4:50pm.
One word. Abortion.
That's good
Submitted by blablablather on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 4:58pm.
Change the subject why don't ya.
It's not a change of subject.
Submitted by ant on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 5:44pm.
It's not a change of subject. Libs are always so concerned about "teh li'l chilldrens" when it's convenient for them. When it's not then it's "terminate the little parasites.".
Classic troll
Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 5:20pm.
You cherry-pick one stat and think you're making a point? Try reading all the resources in the post immediately above yours, then come back. I guarantee you won't like what you read, but if you're intellectually honest, you might be surprised.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Don't know what you are talking about
Submitted by blablablather on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 5:43pm.
I took the one main point of the article and called the logic fallacious. It's like saying there's a reduction in diaper rash and it is no doubt because people use more disposable diapers. There's nothing necessaryily connecting the two. It's a straw man. More guns = less violent cirme? Could it contribute? Perhaps. But in a society with already unusually high comparitive levels of violent crime and gun ownership? Stop fooling yourself. It don't mean squat. How about checking the rates of death by firearms instead of violent crime? That's what I was looking for. A quick google search came up with my link. My presentation is pretty much a straw man also, but is a starker reality for which the correlation is much closer than what the NRA has to offer.
Blab, I used to think that concealed weapons permits
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 5:50pm.
was one of the worst ideas ever. I was wrong. Millions of people have defended themselves using a handgun. Check out the link.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30405
"In approximately 2.5 million instances each year, someone uses a firearm, predominantly a handgun, for self defense in this nation.
In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed."
Facts work
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 9:25pm.
every time they're tried, NC Cop. Blabla has no answer, so he scuttles back under his bridge and hides.
And, fata$$Moore doesn't yet realize that he put forth a great argument for gun ownership, i.e. "the vast majority of these guns are owned by people who live in safe parts of town or mostly in suburbs and rural areas, places where there are very few murders".
See how that connects, Mikey? If you own a gun and folks tend to know that you do, or it's assumed you do, mostly you get left alone. If you live in a "gun-free zone", government has just hung a bulls-eye on your back.
Blabla, if you lived next to me, I'd put up a sign in my yard, advertising the fact that I'm heavily armed, and with an arrow pointing at your house, advertising that you don't believe in guns. Wonder who'd get left alone?
Areas with stricter gun
Submitted by ant on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 5:55pm.
Areas with stricter gun control laws have a higher rate of violent crime while those area's where many citizens are armed are considered safer and you think that argument is fallacious. Years ago (I forget the details) a mad-man picked a mall that was a 'gun-free zone' inside a city with open-carry laws, do you think that was a coincidence?
Do you believe Palin and talk-radio is responsible for violence? Do you believe colder winters are proof of Global Warming? Do you believe Islam is the religion of peace? Do you believe the government is always only looking out for your best interest? Liberals believe all this BS, but they can't possibly believe that an armed citizenry is a deterent to criminals. And people wonder why the nation is divided. Oy-vey.
Blab, think about it now. If
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 6:01pm.
Blab, think about it now. If you were a criminal, would you rob the local gun shop, or a convience store. Gun store will have more cash on hand.
In an carry state, where would comit your crime? A gun free zone, or down at a local eatery?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
There's a difference...
Submitted by blablablather on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 10:27pm.
between what I am saying and what almost everyone else keeps bringing up.
I correlate between dealths by firearems, and specifically children under 15, and everyong else is talking about crime. Here: I totally believe that if everyone were armed there would be less crime. OK. I totally believe that more children under 15 will also be killed by a firearm if everyone were armed also. And more people will be killed by guns. Some will be innocent or accidental. And I know that the trade off is worth it to some people. Not to me.
If everyone had cars more
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 10:32pm.
If everyone had cars more children will be killed by cars. Should we get rid of cars? If everyone had swimming pools more children would drown. Should we outlaw swimming pools?
Government cannot protect us from life. Some of us don't want it to try.
A suggestion?
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 10:42pm.
"And I know that the trade off is worth it to some people. Not to me." If it's not worth it to you to live here, move, please. I hear the muslims in Britain are looking for more victims, as are the muslims in mainland Europe. Australia is great this time of year, if you can swim very well. But don't the door hit ya, where the good lord split ya, leave us knuckle draggers and gun toters and GO.
You're posting a link to the CDC to support your argument???
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 5:34pm.
The CDC was politically compromised by the left long ago and is full of commie gun-grabbers whose statistical analysis on the subject is about as reliable as NASA's so-called climate data.
And the actions of a few irresponsible parents is no reason to trample all over the 2nd Amendment rights of 300 million + Americans.
In fact, there is no reason to do that, period.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Must be lonely out there Dave
Submitted by blablablather on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 5:47pm.
Who do you trust?
Must be lonely out there Dave
Submitted by blablablather on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 5:46pm.
Who do you trust?
blablab, that is a 1997
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 5:52pm.
blablab, that is a 1997 "report" by the CDC. This report is a direct result of an event that happned in OKC in 1995.
This was used as fuel to push for more stringent gun control. In conjunction with the Waco weapons findings.
The bottom line with this report is it is fabricated with fabircated and skewered data. This is well know and documented with the NRA and was eventualy droped as evidence.
In other words, its bulls...t. More Clinton, "I did not have sex with that woman."
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Think it's changed much since 1997?
Submitted by blablablather on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 6:25pm.
Well if the NRA says it's BS it must be. Was going to ask you the same question as Dave, but I guess the answer is the NRA. Guess we all gotta believe in something.
Here ya go
Submitted by CSM on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 4:45pm.
MIchael Moore is a dumba##!!
Enough said
Here ya go
Submitted by CSM on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 4:47pm.
Michael Moore is a dumba##!!
Enough said
Moore is incapable of logical reasoning
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 5:57pm.
From the Book of Moore Logic . . .
- There is no need to maintain a powerful military because no militaries have attacked the US since 1945.
- Why are there so many police in this city, when it's the other city that has the higher crime rate?
Un-reply
Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 5:20pm.
deleted.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Well
Submitted by octavioj on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 5:53pm.
Maybe these people never really looked at data. In this country or other countries. Here is an article that shows inverse correlation between number of guns and crime. Here it is:
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/law/guns/2205-gun-control-myths-the-case-of-england.html
I'm just glad that michael
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 10:34pm.
I'm just glad that michael moore's appearances are mostly limited to the radical liberal ghetto of MSNBC where I will never accidentally see or hear him talking.